WILLIAM H. CUMMINGS and M. VENKATESAN*
Researchers in consumer behavior have attempted to relate attitude change,
information seeking, and brand loyalty to the concept of cognitive dissonance.
The writers reviev/ the consumer behavior literature relating to cognitive
dissonance, critique the research, and provide some directions for future
research.
Cognitive Dissonance and Consumer Behavior:
A Reviev/ of the Evidence
findings of studies critiqued in this review are organized in two categories: (1) effects of dissonance arousal
on attitude change and tendency to repurchase, and
(2) effects of dissonance arousal on selective information seeking by consumers.
By far the greatest amount of dissonance-related
research in consumer behavior has used attitude
change as the dependent measure. Brehm's study [5]
was the first to observe the predicted effect of magnitude of dissonance (relative desirability of the alternatives) on reranking of the chosen and unchosen alternatives. Several studies [1, 9, 12, 23, 27, 28, 37,
38] have replicated and extended Brehm's initial
findings with different products and settings. Only
a single study [11] reported no effects of magnitude
of dissonance on measures of brand preference, intention to purchase, or brand loyalty. Also the two studies
[16, 25] that investigated "real life consumer situations" generally obtained findings consistent with the
theory. A somewhat different approach was taken
in three studies [15, 24, 43] which used postpurchase
reinforcement techniques to reduce purchasers' dissonance after the purchase of major products. In general,
the studies which have examined the effects of dissonance arousal on attitude change and tendency to
repurchase have supported the predictions from the
theory (although there are some obvious exceptions).
After reviewing all the available evidence within
social psychology, Freedman and Sears [21] and Sears
[36] concluded that the empirical findings have not
supported either a general preference for supportive
over nonsupportive information or a greater information seeking/avoidance tendency by high dissonance
subjects. Similarly, studies [17, 18, 27] of the effects
of dissonance arousal on selective information seeking
INTRODUCTION
In the last 10 years substantial research has been
applied to a number of topics in consumer behavior.
Most of the studies have involved concepts and
propositions formulated on the basis of social psychological theories. One such theory which has been found
to have applications to consumer behavior is the theory
of cognitive dissonance [7, 20].
Several articles have provided critical reviews of
the theory and have described how the theory relates
to consumer behavior [8, 19, 25, 45]. Many of these
earlier summaries of the theory gave much promise
for an increased understanding and applications for
consumer behavior. There are now 23 studies which
have examined empirically the arousal and reduction
of cognitive dissonance in the context of consumer
behavior'. Therefore, it would be valuable to examine
critically all of the empirical studies that have investigated the applicability of cognitive dissonance theory
to the consumer behavior context^. For clarity, the
'Three studies [4, 32, 35] are not included in this review as
they do not fit in any one of the three categories because of their
dependent measures. More important, the studies by Bell [4] and
Reizenstein [35] are peripheral to dissonance; Oshikawa's study
[32] is an attempt at experimental refutation of a basic prediction
from dissonance theory and the context in which it was tested
does not relate to consumer behavior.
^Oshikawa critiqued some studies, primarily on the grounds of
"ceiling effect" [30, 31, 33].
* William H. Cummings has just completed his doctoral degree
in Social Psychology and M. Venkatesan is Professor of Business
Administration, University of Iowa.
303
Journal of Marketing Research
Vol. XIII (August 1976), 303-8
304
by the consumer have not strongly supported the
predictions from the theory. Thus, the evidence from
the consumer behavior literature on this question is
(like the evidence from social psychology) most equivocal. It cannot be concluded at this time that dissonance arousal factors are relevant to postpurchase
information seeking variables in the marketing situation.
CRITIQUE
Any conclusions to be drawn from the studies
reviewed must be made in light of the methodological
and conceptual limitations of these studies. Such an
examination should be of use both to the researcher
and to the practitioner. Chapanis and Chapanis [10]
critiqued the earlier research on cognitive dissonance.
They criticized the studies by Brehm [5] and by
Ehrlich et al. [17] for rejection of large numbers of
subjects (both studies) and failure to include a proper
control condition (Ehrlich et al.). Eor the most part,
however, the studies which investigated the application
of dissonance theory to consumer behavior have
presented a different set of problems, not previously
cataloged.
Measurement of Magnitude of Dissonance
Some researchers have attempted to assess magnitude of dissonance by questioning the subject about
his (her) level of conflict or worry about the
"rightness" of his (her) decision [4, U, 24]. It is
not clear that these measures were tapping magnitude
of dissonance. In fact, as Oshikawa [34] and Hawkins
[22] demonstrated, these measures probably were
tapping a good deal other than dissonance arousal.
These investigators demonstrated that such measures
are correlated with measures of general confidence
and anxiety. Thus, unless a theoretically relevant and
unambiguous measure of magnitude of dissonance
aroused is used, the results are of questionable relevance to dissonance theory.
Regression Artifacts
Eour studies [1,5, 27, 38] employed the free choice
paradigm in which the high-dissonance situation consisted of a choice between two products of similar
desirability, and the low-dissonance situation consisted
of a choice between two products of disparate desirability. By chance alone, after a period of time has
elapsed, there should be greater spread in the desirability of the "high-dissonance" products than of the
"low-dissonance" products. This is precisely the effect predicted by the theory. Thus, any study employing this paradigm must include the appropriate correction for regression (as in [5]) or a no-choice control
condition (as in [27]). Without such a correction, it
is impossible to assess that portion of the overall effect
which is due to statistical regression and that portion
which is due to dissonance reduction.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 1976
Oshikawa's criticisms [30, 31, 33] of the studies
using this paradigm appear to be somewhat overstated.
As noted, [5] and [27] included appropriate corrections for ceiling effects or regression artifacts. Similarly, there are certain aspects of Sheth's [38] data
which cannot be explained by recourse to a regression
artifact argument (see [39]). In general, it seems that
the studies which have employed this paradigm have
supported the predictions from the theory, despite
the possibility of regression artifacts.
Eailure to Meet Prerequisite Conditions for
Producing Dissonance
Accumulated evidence has demonstrated that certain prerequisite conditions are necessary in order for
dissonance effects to occur. Brehm and Cohen [7]
emphasized that volition and irrevocable commitment
to the decision (product choice) are necessary. It is
not clear, for example, in some studies [3, 9] whether
subjects were given any choice as to whether or not
to perform the task which was instrumental to obtaining the product. Certainly this choice was not made
salient to the subjects. Aronson [3] emphasized that
the dissonance-producing decision must be an important choice; it must to some degree bear on the
individual's self-concept. Again the situation provided
in the studies is questionable: even if a decision were
made by the subject, would a decision concerning
a rather inexpensive item be an important one? Maybe,
but maybe not. A clear test of the theory is not
provided. Similarly, the obviously role-playing situations in some studies [23, 28] necessarily reduce the
importance of the decision for the subjects. Subjects
in these role-playing situations are probably making
decisions of minimal importance to themselves. To
the extent that the experimental situation fails to meet
the prerequisite conditions of volition, irrevocability
of the commitment, and importance of the decision,
it is doubted that dissonance was aroused. Although
the studies may obtain effects in line with the theory,
these effects may be due to causes other than dissonance arousal.
Failure to Shield Against Alternative Modes of
Dissonance Reduction
Several modes of dissonance reduction are open
to the individual who has made a decision, and it
is difficult to predict which mode the individual will
use. It is likely that more than one or perhaps all
modes are used at different times. Unless the investigator allows only one mode of reduction to vary
while holding all other modes constant, it is likely
that many different modes will be used by different
subjects. This variation will necessarily weaken the
dissonance-produced effect.
The failure to shield against alternative modes of
dissonance reduction has been particularly salient in
investigations of dissonance theory in the consumer
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
behavior area [17, 18]. For example. Straits [42]
criticized Engel's [18] study on a number of points
which indicate a failure to shield against alternative
modes. Ehrlich et al. [17] likewise permitted subjects
ample opportunity to reduce dissonance by various
means prior to the study.
The failure to shield against alternative modes
sometimes appears in more subtle forms. For example,
LoSciuto and Perloff [27] followed a productpreference reranking task with a recognition task.
Significant effects of magnitude of dissonance were
obtained with the reranking task but not with the
recognition task. These results are in line with the
theory: once dissonance has been reduced by means
of product re-evaluation, there should be little or no
subsequent effect of magnitude of dissonance on
information-seeking behaviors.
Accepting Null Differences as Support of the Theory
Chapanis and Chapanis [10] applied this criticism
("straining for significance") to the earlier tests of
dissonance theory. This criticism applies as well to
some of the studies in the consumer behavior area.
Experimental differences which appear to support
predictions from dissonance theory, which appear to
qualify the theory, or which appear to specify the
conditions under which dissonance theory should or
should not be applied, must be interpreted as no
difference between experimental conditions unless a
predetermined level of statistical significance is
reached.
Questionable Relevance to Dissonance Theory
A number of studies which have cited dissonance
theory as a source of hypotheses do not, in fact,
appear to be relevant to dissonance theory. For example, three studies examined the effect of prior
expectations on subsequent evaluations of the product
[2, 9, 29]. Though this is certainly an important
question, it is not, as these investigators claimed, a
question relevant to dissonance theory. There is no
decision, no initial commitment, and no postdecisional
phase involved in any of these studies. Likewise, some
studies' [e.g. 41] have manipulated variables that are
not clearly relevant to the theory. The effects of such
manipulations cannot be taken either to support or
not to support the theory.
Correlational Evidence Taken as Causal
Correlational evidence is certainly valuable in demonstrating potential relationships and suggesting new
and fruitful lines of research. However, such evidence
is not nearly conclusive. Correlational studies which
have been cited in support of dissonance theory may
be considered to be consistent with the theory but
not actually supportive of the theory. However, these
studies made stronger conclusions than are warranted.
One study [11] presented correlational evidence of
305
a different sort. The investigators divided the subjects
into a high-dissonance group and a low-dissonance
group on the basis of the subjects' postdecisional
ratings of predecisional conflict. The investigators
observed no significant effects of "dissonance" on
a number of measures. These findings were interpreted
as a disconfirmation of dissonance theory. What the
results do demonstrate is that there is little if any
correlation between this initial measure of conflict
and the subsequent measures. Because there was no
manipulation of magnitude of dissonance, these findings cannot really be taken as a disconfirmation of
the theory.
Compelling Alternative Explanations
The presence of compelling alternative explanations
is certainly not a flaw in any study. However, such
alternative explanations make it difficult to use a set
of findings as compelling proof of the theory. Doob
et al. [16] demonstrated that introducing a product
at a special low price decreases later sales, as predicted
by the theory. However, this effect may be due either
to buyers' "stockpiling" goods at the time of the sale
or to "frustration" on the part of the buyers who
are suddenly faced with a more expensive item.
Reinforcement notions provide a simple and compelling alternative explanation to the findings reported
by Van Dyke [43] and Donnelly and Ivancevich [15].
Both studies employed postpurchase contact as a
means of improving buyers' attitudes toward the
product [43] or decreasing backout rates [15]. One
simply can view the contacts as postpurchase social
reinforcements, rather than attempts to assist the
purchaser in reducing dissonance, which should have
similar effects on postpurchase satisfaction.
OVERALL EVALUATION
Because of the methodological and conceptual limitations of the studies, it is difficult to make a definite
statement of the applicability of dissonance theory
to consumer behavior. Certainly none of the findings
in this literature have presented a major challenge
to the validity of the theory, because of the methodological problems involved. However, no single study
has provided evidence which conclusively supports
the application of dissonance theory to consumer
behavior. In brief, the evidence is far from definite.
But it should be noted that the evidence in favor
of the applicability of dissonance theory is more
voluminous and somewhat more substantial than the
evidence against. This conclusion should, in turn, be
properly qualified: as noted, it appears questionable
that magnitude of dissonance has any effect on the
consumer's information-seeking behavior. The evidence with respect to attitude change and tendency
to repurchase is, however, more substantial. Studies
have demonstrated the predicted effects with a wide
range of products, a number of dependent measures.
306
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 1976
a range of settings, and a number of operationalizations
of the conceptual variable, "cognitive dissonance."
There is no other single explanation—other than cognitive dissonance theory—that can account fully for the
results of these studies. Though several important and
intriguing problems and alternative explanations have
been presented, none can account adequately for all
the findings in this area. The empirical realization
of "cognitive dissonance" and the generalizability of
this phenomenon to consumer behavior—excluding
information-seeking behavior—has been substantiated.
DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH AND
APPLICATION
Application of Dissonance Theory in Consumer
Behavior
Because of the limitations in the existing research,
it is difficult to draw conclusions with respect to the
proper application of the theory to marketing situations. However, it was noted heretofore that predictions from the theory can be applied most accurately
when there is high perceived volition concerning the
choice or purchase, when there is an irrevocable
commitment to the choice or purchase, and when the
choice or purchase is an important (ego-involving)
one for the buyer. Similarly, it was noted that the
manipulation of magnitude of dissonance can be
expected to influence postpurchase attitude or behavior change, but not postpurchase information seeking.
Finally, a clear prediction can be made from the theory
only when one mode of dissonance reduction is allowed
to vary while all other modes are held constant. It
is not possible to offer further guidelines for the
application of the theory in the marketing situation
at this time. The studies to date have not examined
the conditions under which dissonance theory will and
will not work. Certainly more research is needed on
this point. Until more evidence is available, careful
pilot testing must be undertaken for each new situation.
One reason that so little is known about the conditions under which the theory is or is not applicable
in the marketing situation is that most of the research
has been done in the laboratory rather than in the
field. Of the 23 studies reviewed here, only five [15,
16, 24,38,43] have examined the effects of magnitude
of dissonance, as a manipulated variable, on subsequent attitude or behavior change in the field. The
problems associated with field research are
compounded in dissonance research, in which the
investigator must have careful control over both the
antecedent conditions and the various alternative
modes of dissonance reduction. However, certain
studies [15, 16, 43] apparently have overcome this
obstacle successfully.
Experimental research in this area has concentrated
primarily on the free choice paradigm. However, there
are other paradigms which seem to be relevant to
consumer behavior. Because the objective of this
review is to examine critically the empirical findings
from the cognitive dissonance concepts in consumer
behavior, this review is not the place to point out
in detail how these paradigms might apply to consumer
behavior or to provide compelling arguments as to
why consumer behavior researchers should explore
these paradigms. However, because recent investigations in social psychology have been focused on two
paradigms, the forced compliance paradigm and the
fait accompli paradigm, a brief discussion of them
is provided to encourage consumer behavior researchers to use these two dissonance-related approaches.
Forced compliance paradigm. Can the forced compliance paradigm—in which the subject is persuaded
to behave in a manner that is inconsistent with his
prior beliefs—be used in the marketing situation?
Oshikawa [32] has replied with a definite "No!"
However, it appears that there are some situations
in which the forced compliance paradigm can be
applied. Oshikawa argued that "the applicability of
the theory to consumer behavior is considerably limited," because "in the natural market setting, consumers
do not comply with such requests as buying the
second-best brand when the best brand is available"
[40, p. 134]. However, Darley and Cooper [14]
negated this criticism by demonstrating that the
forced-choice type of prediction can be made from
dissonance theory even when individuals are induced
not to engage in discrepant behaviors. Moreover,
Varela [44] suggested some imaginative applications
of the forced compliance paradigm. Likewise, Doob
et al. [16] made use of the "crucial theoretical
statement" of the forced compliance situation: "the
less the pressure . . . put upon the person to perform
the act, the greater the dissonance [itahcs added] . . .
the greatest attitude change will occur theoretically
when the pressure is the minimal amount necessary
to induce the subject to perform the act" [26, p.
206]. This principle should be of great applicability
in the consumer context.
Fait accompli paradigm. Brehm [6] introduced the
fait accompli paradigm with a demonstration that a
negative .event following a "bad decision" would
increase the dissonance produced by that decision.
The fait accompli paradigm certainly appears to be
applicable to the marketing situation. Investigations
with this paradigm should suggest the situations and
techniques by which buyer dissatisfaction can be
minimized. Recent investigations in social psychology
[ 13,40] have attempted to specify the conditions under
which the fait accompli effect will occur.
CONCLUSIONS
Chapanis and Chapanis [10] reviewed the evidence
regarding dissonance theory in 1964 and concluded
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AND CONSUMER BEHAVIOR
that dissonance theory was "NOT PROVEN." Reviewing the evidence to date on the application of
dissonance theory to consumer behavior, the writers
also must conclude that such applicability is "not
proven." (But then, is any theory in the behavioral sciences ever really proved?) We must conclude,
however, that the evidence in favor of dissonance
theory in the consumer behavior literature looks good.
To be sure, although the supportive evidence is restricted by certain methodological and conceptual
limitations, dissonance theory provides the best single
explanation which can account for all the results across
these studies. Moreover, there are no conclusive
negative findings in the areas of post-purchase attitude
change and tendency to repurchase. The evidence has
not supported the applicability of dissonance theory
to selective exposure and similar behaviors.
At this point, research would be directed best toward
specifying the marketing conditions under which dissonance theory would be most applicable. Furthermore, the applicability of two dissonance paradigms
which have not been studied in consumer behavior
should be investigated further. Dissonance theory
already has provided new ideas and spawned much
new research in consumer behavior. Additional insights into postpurchase behavior are promised by
dissonance theory and related approaches.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
REFERENCES
Anderson, L. K., J. R. Taylor, and R. J. Holloway.
"The Consumer and His Alternatives: An Experimental
Approach," Journal of Marketing Research, 3 (February
1966), 62-7.
Anderson, R. E. "Consumer Dissatisfaction: The Effect
of Disconfirmed Expectancy on Perceived Product Performance," Journal of Marketing Research, 10 (Eebruary
1973), 38-44.
Aronson, E. "Dissonance Theory: Progress and Problems," in R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire,
T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, and P. H. Tannenbaum, eds.. Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A
Sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1968.
Bell, G. D. "The Automobile Buyer After the Purchase," Journal of Marketing, 31 (July 1967), 12-6.
Brehm, J. W. "Post-Decision Changes in the Desirability
of Alternatives," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52 (May 1956), 384-9.
"Increasing Cognitive Dissonance by a Fait
AccompVi,'''' Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
58 (May 1959), 379-82.
and A. R. Cohen. Explorations in Cognitive
Dissonance. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
1962.
Calder, B. J. "Cognitive Consistency and Consumer
Behavior," in H. H. Kassarjian and T. S. Robertson,
Perspectives in Consumer Behavior. Glenview, Illinois:
Scott, Foresman and Co., 1973.
Cardozo, R. N. "An Experimental Study of Customer
Effort, Expectation, and Satisfaction," Journal of Marketing Research, 2 (August 1965), 244-9.
307
10. Chapanis, N., and A. Chapanis. "Cognitive Dissonance
Five Years Later," Psychological Bulletin, 61 (January
1964), 1-22.
11. Cohen, J. B., and M. E. Goldberg. "The Dissonance
Model in Post-Decision I*roduct Evaluation," Journal
of Marketing Research, 1 (August 1970), 315-21.
12.
and M. J. Houston. "Cognitive Consequences
of Brand Loyalty," Journal of Marketing Research, 9
(February 1972), 97-9.
13. Cooper, J. "Personal Responsibility and Dissonance:
The Role of Foreseen Consequences," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18 (June 1971), 354-63.
14. Darley, S. A., and J. Cooper. "Cognitive Consequences
of Forced Noncompliance," Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 24 (December 1972), 321-6.
15. Donnelly, J. H., and J. M. Ivancevich. "Post-I*urchase
Reinforcement and Back-Out Behavior," Journal of
Marketing Research, 1 (August 1970), 399-400.
16. Doob, A. N., J. M. Carlsmith, J. Freedman, T. K.
Landauer, and S. Tom. "Effect of Initial Selling Price
on Subsequent Sales," Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 11 (April 1969), 354-50.
17. Ehrlich, D., I. Guttman, P. Schonbach, and J. Mills.
"Post-decision Exposure to Relevant Information,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54 (January
1957), 98-102.
18. Engel, J. F. "Are Automobile Purchasers Dissonant
Consumers?" Journal of Marketing, 27 (April 1963),
55-8.
19.
and M. L. Light. "The Role of Psychological
Commitment in Consumer Behavior: An Evaluation of
the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance," in F. M. Bass,
C. W. King, and E. A. Pessemier, Applications of the
Sciences in Marketing Management. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1968.
20. Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1957.
21. Freedman, J. L., and D. O. Sears. "Selective Exposure," in L. Berkowitz, Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 2. New York: Academic Press, 1965.
22. Hawkins, D. I. "Reported Cognitive Dissonance and
Anxiety: Some Additional Findings," Journal of Marketing, 36 (July 1972), 63-6.
23. Holloway, R. J. "An Experiment on Consumer Dissonance," Journal of Marketing, 31 (January 1967), 39-43.
24. Hunt, S. D. "Post-Transaction Communications and
Dissonance Reduction," Journal of Marketing, 34 (July
1970), 46-51.
25. Kassarjian, H. H., and J. B. Cohen. "Cognitive Dissonance and Consumer Behavior," California Management Review, 8 (Fall 1965), 55-64.
26. Kiesler, C. A., B. E. Collins, and N. Miller. Attitide
Change: A Critical Analysis of Theoretical Approaches.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1969.
27. LoSciuto, L., and R. Perloff. "Influence of Product
Preference on Dissonance Reduction," Journal of Marketing Research, 4 (August 1967), 286-90.
28. Mittelstaedt, R. "A Dissonance Approach to Repeat
Purchasing Behavior," Journal of Marketing Research,
6 (November 1969), 444-6.
29. Olshavsky, R. W., and J. A. Miller. "Consumer
Expectations, Product Performance, and Perceived
Product Quality," Journal of Marketing Research, 9
(February 1972), 19-21.
308
30. Oshikawa, S. "The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
and Experimental Research," Journal of Marketing
Research, 5 (November 1968), 429-30.
31.
"Can Cognitive Dissonance Theory Explain
Consumer Behavior?" Journal of Marketing, 33 (October
1969), 44-9.
32.
"Consumer Pre-Decision Conflict and PostDecision Dissonance," Behavioral Science, 15 (March
1970), 132-40.
33.
"Dissonance Reduction or Artifact?" Journal
of Marketing Research, 8 (November 1971), 514-5.
34.
"The Measurement of Cognitive Dissonance:
Some Experimental Findings," Journal of Marketing,
36 (January 1972), 64-7.
35. Reizenstein, R. C. "A Dissonance Approach to Measuring the Effectiveness of Two Personal Selling Techniques Through Decision Reversal," Combined Proceedings, American Marketing Association, Spring and
Fall Conferences, 1971, 176-80.
36. Sears, D. O. The Paradox of De Facto Selective Exposure Without Preference for Supportive Information,
in R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M.
Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, and P. H. Tannenbaum,
eds.. Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook.
Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1968.
37. Sheth, J. N. "Cognitive Dissonance, Brand Preference,
JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, AUGUST 1976
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
and Product Familiarity," in J. Arndt, Insights Into
Consumer Behavior. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1968.
"Are There Differences in Dissonance Reduction Behavior Between Students and Housewives?"
Journal of Marketing Research, 1 (May 1970), 243-5.
"Dissonance Reduction or Artifact? A Reply,"
Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (November 1971)
516-7.
Sogin, S. R. "Bad Decisions, Responsibility, and Attitude Change," unpublished master's thesis. The University of Iowa, 1973.
Stoerzinger, C. A. "The Selectivity of Information After
a Consumer Decision," unpublished master's thesis.
University of Minnesota, 1965.
Straits, B. C. "The Pursuit of the Dissonant Consumer,"
Journal of Marketing, 28 (July 1964), 62-6.
Van Dyke, J. E. "A Study of the Arousal and Reduction
of Post-Decision Dissonance Following the Purchase
of a New Automobile," unpublished master's thesis.
The University of Iowa, 1966.
Varela, J. A. Psychological Solutions to Social Problems:
An Introduction to Social Technology. New York:
Academic Press, 1971.
Venkatesan, M. "Cognitive Dissonance," in R. Ferber,
Handbook of Marketing Research. New York: McGrawHill Book Co., 1975.